Skip to main content
. 2022 Jun 7;22:1134. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13438-9

Table 3.

Characteristics of included studies (n = 22) about mediation between socioeconomic status (SES) and preterm birth

Paper Design Country Sample Size and Characteristics Study Period Mediation Analysis Approach Measure of SES Quality Score (/13)
Poulsen et al. (2019) [33] Cohort Denmark 77,020 – National birth cohort (whole) NS Difference method using risk differences from linear regression Maternal education: Short (≤ lower secondary) to long (degree; reference) 10
Netherlands 4,508 – Rotterdam birth cohort (whole) NS
Norway 78,267 – National birth cohort (whole) NS
Ross et al. (2019) [34] Cohort United States (US) 718,952 –Californian birth cohort (whole) 2007–2012 Product of coefficients/ Path analysis using Lavaan Package Maternal education: At most high-school to more than high school (reference) 9
Dolatian et al. (2014) [35] Cohort Iran 500 – Random sample of pregnant women from stratified sample of four Tehran hospitals 2011–2012 Product of coefficients/ Path analysis using Lisrel Software Income 9
Clayborne et al. (2017) [36] Cohort Canada 2,068 – Sample of pregnant women from Calgary and Edmonton Metropolitan Regions 2008–2012 Product of coefficients using PROCESS macro Neighbourhood SES 8
Dooley (2009) [37] [PhD thesis] Cross-sectional US 28,793 – Hamilton County, Ohio, birth cohort (whole) 2001–2003 Product of coefficients/ Path analysis of multilevel modelling using Mplus Neighbourhood concentrated disadvantage 8
Mehra et al. (2019) [38] Cohort US 138,494 – National convenience sample (retrospective) of births from all states using health insurance data 2011 Product of coefficients/ Path analysis of multilevel modelling using Mplus Neighbourhood SES: most deprived quarter to least deprived (reference) 8
Meng et al. (2013) [39] Cross-sectional Canada 90,500—All births (including multiple) at three Ontario province public health units 2000–2008 Product of coefficients of multilevel modelling using both linear and logistic regression Neighbourhood SES 8
Mirabzadeh et al. (2013) [40] Cohort Iran 500 – Random sample of pregnant women from stratified sample of four Tehran hospitals 2012–2013 Product of coefficients/ Path analysis using Lisrel Software Composite comprising: maternal and spousal education, persons and cost/household area, car, computer 8
Misra et al. (2001) a[41] Cross-sectional US 735 – Urban university hospital sample of births to black mothers: drug users, women without prenatal care, and a systematic sample of the rest 1995–1996 Difference method using logistic regression Lack of time and money 8
Nkansah-Amankra et al. (2010) [42] Cross-sectional US 8,064 – South Carolina state, stratified systematic sample of births 2000–2003 Difference method using multilevel logistic modelling Neighbourhood SES: Proportion of residents in poverty 8
Räisänen et al. (2013) [43] Cross-sectionalb Finland 1,390,742 – National birth cohort (whole) 1987–2010 Difference method using logistic regression Maternal occupation; blue collar relative to upper white collar (reference) 8
Ahern et al. (2003) [44] Case–Control US 1,496 cases + controls – A San Francisco hospital based sample of births: All preterm plus random selections of full-term, stratified by African American and White 1980–1990 Difference method using multilevel logistic modelling Neighbourhood context 7
Amegah et al. (2013) [45] Cross-sectional Ghana 559 – Cape Coast’s four main healthcare facilities, random sample weighted by hospital or urban centre 2011 Difference method: Generalised linear model using Poisson Distribution and log link Level of monthly income: low to upper middle and high (reference) 7
van den Berg et al. (2012) [46] Cohort Netherlands 3,821 – Amsterdam birth cohort (Dutch-only) (whole) 2003–2004 Difference method using logistic regression Maternal education: years of education after primary school, low (< 6) to high (> 10; reference) 7
Morgen et al. (2008) [47] Cohort Denmark 38,131 primiparous & 37,849 multiparous – National birth cohort 1996–2002 Difference method using Cox regression Maternal education; < 10 years to > 12 years (reference) 7
Gisselmann and Hemström (2008) [48] Cross-sectional Sweden 356,887 – National birth cohort (whole) 1980–1985 Difference method using logistic regression Maternal occupation: Unskilled manufacturing manuals to middle non-manuals (reference) 7
Niedhammer et al. (2012) [49] Cohort Republic of Ireland 913 – Random sample of pregnant women (Irish-only) from two hospitals (urban and rural) 2001–2003 Difference method using Cox Regression Maternal education: lower than to higher than secondary (reference) 7
Jansen et al. (2009) [50] Cohort Netherlands 3,830 – Rotterdam birth cohort (whole) 2002–2006 Difference method using logistic regression Maternal education: low (< 4 years general secondary) to high (Master degree, PhD; reference) 7
Quispel et al. (2014) a[51] Cohort Netherlands 1,013 – Rotterdam, Apeldoorn, Breda: Random samples of pregnant women from primary, secondary, tertiary care 2009–2011 Difference method using logistic regression Maternal education: low to moderate (reference) 6
Gissler et al. (2003) [52] Cross-sectional Finland 548,913 – National birth cohort (whole) 1991–1999 Difference method using logistic regression Maternal occupation: blue collar to upper white collar (reference) 6
Gray et al. (2008) [53] Cohort Scotland 400,752 – National (hospital) birth cohort (whole) 1994–2003 Difference method using logistic regression Neighbourhood SES: most deprived fifth to least deprived (area-based) (reference) 6
de Oliveira et al. (2019) [54] Case–Control Brazil 296 cases + 329 controls – Londrina sample of hospital births (including multiple) 2006–2007 Structural equation modelling Socioeconomic vulnerability 4

NS not stated

a Not specified if Misra et al. (2001) [41] and Quispel et al. (2014) [51] excluded multiple births. Meng et al. (2013) [39] and de Oliveira et al. (2019) [54] included multiple births. All other studies excluded multiple births

b despite being labelled as a case–control study

Ordered by Quality Score